In torture news today, there's a study out demonstrating what those following the issue already knew: that editors decided not to use the word "torture" for Bush-era torture policy, despite using that word in the past when other nations used torture. In Andrew Sullivan's words, they failed to tell "the unvarnished truth to their readers and listeners in plain English."
I am generally sympathetic to Adam Serwer's speculation about the causes for this failure, which center on the media's institutional norm of even-handedness rather than on, say, the media's institutional norm of cravenness. But (and I think Serwer agrees): that's an explanation, not an excuse.
I don't have much to add here. This was a clear, serious, disastrous failure by the New York Times and other newspapers and broadcasters. I believe the Times has a new "public editor;" it seems to me that this issue is by for the most important item for that agenda.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
'Even-handedness' is not the term for It's Different When We Do It. Dishonesty, bias, lying, etc.
ReplyDeleteThere's a reason that the statue of Justic wears a blindfold.
I had a few one-on-one conversations, deep and interesting conversations, about this issue a couple of years ago with several journos -- some whose name you'd know -- good, solid journos for whom I have a great deal of respect.
ReplyDeleteTheir thinking and reasoning was actually quite complex on the journalistic aspect of how to write about waterboarding and torture, and I'll say that their personal view, as told to me, was pretty much the same as most of us. I'm not saying I agree with their conclusions, but it goes much deeper than the glib and unhelpful "craven servitude" and "cowardice" moralizing by the Greenwalds and the Sullivans and the Rosens among us.
They had been convinced, actually they had convinced themselves and the bushies had convinced them, that the legal determination that the acts were "torture" had not been met, therefore they could not describe the acts as torture without a degree of hedging. For example, journalists write "Man shoots wife dead" and not "Man murders wife" because murder is a legal determination and not an editorial decision. This journalistic stricture compelled them to add the "which critics have called torture" or "which some human rights groups call torture" phrase that drives amateur media critics (like me) crazy. I learned that the "critics say" addition is actually a way to get that aspect IN to the story, and you saw that a lot, as detailed in the Harvard study. Even when I argued that the ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen “High Value Detainees” in CIA Custody WAS the legal determination it wasn't enough to convince. It was a high, high bar.
There was also the aspect of not wanting to be the lone ranger out there -- not wanting to be, or their bosses not letting them be. It would have been a huge risk to the honest, mid-level journo to be the first to put that seven-letter word in their lede. Who would have their back? If Shane and Mazetti had taken the lead in calling it torture, and Bill Keller had Shane's and Mazetti's back, others would have followed, and there would have been a real conversation about whether this was a path that we as Americans wanted to follow. But the New York Times made the editorial decision to go with "harsh." Who knows why? Maybe someday we will get an honest, unvarnished answer.
Another aspect had to do with the effectiveness of the euphemisms that the bushies were using in tamping down the horror of it. You saw Dana Priest, one of the most solid journos in Washington, saying that "it wasn't like they were ripping their fingernail out or breaking their bones." (Actually, they were.) So the terminology that the administration used had a definite propaganda effect. When Malcolm Nance came out and graphically described waterboarding publicly, you started to see an escalation of description: moving from "enhanced interrogation techniques" to "harsh" and "brutal" and so forth. You saw more of "critics say it's torture" techniques.
And then there was the reluctance to make themselves part of the story. That kind of goes along with not wanting to be the lone ranger out there, but making themselves part of that kind of story has more downsides than one might realize. It distracts from the work, the editor and management get hammered. Some journos love that, of course, but most journos avoid it.
Sorry to go so long, but these were fascinating conversations with these journos who generously shared a great deal of insight into the work they do, how they do it, and what they think about it. We could have benefited, and could still benefit, from this kind of conversation in public. But that won't happen anytime soon, I'm afraid. Thanks for being the rare voice of reason out there, Jonathan. It helps.
"They had been convinced, actually they had convinced themselves and the bushies had convinced them, that the legal determination that the acts were "torture" had not been met, therefore they could not describe the acts as torture without a degree of hedging."
ReplyDeleteAs was pointed out in the study, this had been in fact referred to as 'torture', until the US government started openly doing it. All of what you are writing is a bunch of justifications for lying.
Sorry, I don't mean that *you* are lying, but that the reporters and editors did.
ReplyDeleteWhich I think ties into other recent media events - Dave Weigel's resignation and Lara Logan's recent public admission of the CBS journalistic policy (see: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512).
We now have a generation of journalists, editors, and senior who are more thoroughly compromised than in the 1990's; when push came to shove, they lied - not for the sake of the country, but for the convenience of the administration.
Those people are still in the system, still giving order, still trashing any honest colleagues.
Well, Barry, I didn't claim that I agreed with their assessment. My purpose was to point out that the picture is a lot more complex than the smug liberal blogosphere's simplistic moralist rantings. I don't think it's as simple as you claim. These journos weren't "lying." It was a genuine dilemma for them. It's not the function of every journo to be a crusader; for most of them, it isn't their role within their organization to do that.
ReplyDeleteI just don't think that it's helpful or constructive to get on the high horse and whip the outrage pony without a deeper understanding of how news operations work. It's satisfying for the peanut gallery, to be sure, to make these broad-brush pronouncements of lying and corruption; it's quite another thing to conduct a thoughtful, well-informed conversation about how journalism can be improved.
If we really want to improve the product, and I do, we have to start out by a fuller understanding the position of the "other side." And I might add, the journos with whom I corresponded were very open to this conversation in private; they enjoy talking about their work and appreciate thoughtful criticism. But the silliness of Greenwald's eternal outrage and Rosen's contrived prescriptions is just tuned out, like the "liberal bias" rantings of the right. It isn't actually getting us anywhere to do that.
"James said...
ReplyDeleteWell, Barry, I didn't claim that I agreed with their assessment. My purpose was to point out that the picture is a lot more complex than the smug liberal blogosphere's simplistic moralist rantings. I don't think it's as simple as you claim. These journos weren't "lying." It was a genuine dilemma for them. It's not the function of every journo to be a crusader; for most of them, it isn't their role within their organization to do that. "
They switched when their government needed the switch, not before, and they maintained the original position regarding other governments doing this (although I'll bet that they're similarly 'complex' regarding Israeli torture).
I believe that you are confusing somebody's post-hoc justfications for acting with their motives, and not realizing that their justifications are complex in order to add complexity to a simple issue.
Here's a question - did any of these journalists mention such a debate going on in the 1990's? Did any of these journalists change their minds about such acts done by unfriendly governments?
Here's an analogy, from Greg Sargent (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/times_excuse_for_not_calling_w.html?wprss=plum-line):
ReplyDelete"Think of it this way: We all agree that pickpocketing constitutes "theft." A pickpocket doesn't get to come along and argue: "No, what I did isn't theft, it's merely pickpocketing, and therefore it isn't illegal." Any newspaper that played along with a pickpocket's demand to stop using the word "theft" would be taking the pickpocket's side, not occupying any middle ground. There is no middle ground here."